For what it is worth... First if she was accosting other customers verbally or physically that is a different matter. I am only addressing the clothing issue. what if I find it objectionable that you don't wear dress clothing to fly? Or if you wear the "real oak camo" to the mall?
The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits businesses from denying any person access to public accommodations or stores based on specified classifications. This case,: re Cox, supra.; the supreme court of California ruled in Cox, a shopping mall attempted to eject a young man based solely on the appearance of his companion "who wore long hair and dressed in an unconventional manner." (In re Cox, supra, 3 Cal. In re COX [3 Cal. 3d 205] :: Volume 3 :: Cal. 3d Series :: California Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia.) The court held the Unruh Civil Rights Act barred such treatment; in fact, the court held the Act "prohibit[ed] all arbitrary discrimination by business establishments." (Id. at p. 216, italics added.)Re affirmed in Harris supra, subsequently found that the Act precludes discrimination based on unconventional appearance. (Harris, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at pp. 1155, 1161.)
I find her dress objectionable...but she might find my Hawaiian shirt objectionable...if a few people complained about my shirt, should I be removed from the premises?
kaboomkaboom is quoting California case law. This incident happened in Oregon and is not bound by the ruling of one hyper liberal judge. IMO the lawsuit is frivolous and should be thrown out.
I'm not familiar with the case other than what I have read and everything I have read has just presented Ms McMillin's side of the story. She's shocked and horrified and thinks she was singled out because of her dress. I see dress like that in Walmart quite often. Her dress may have caused other customers to complain, but I think that it is far more likely that they were complaining about her strolling through the food section wearing a catheter with drainage bag taped to her leg. From the original post .... She also had a catheter on her that day, which emptied into a bag on her ankle, which was also all in view.
My speculation is that something like that might cause some customers to complain and might lead an associate to suggest that Ms Mcmillin cover herself. I don't know if exposed catheter drainage bags in the food section cause any health concerns in Oregon, but if they don't, they should.
I stand corrected.
Ya know, I think she looks horrendous. If I saw her in WM, I'd give her a wide berth. But that's a personal opinion and feeling. I do think the cath bag was a bit "over the top" or more honestly, disgusting.
That said, keep in mind that the way we are percieved (you know, all us "gun nuts" on gun forums)isn't that different from how we see the WM shopper shown above.
Kinda like this:
Some people don't understand the concept of decency. Ignore them. If they fail to get the attention they crave... they might just stop acting out to get it.
Spoke with a colleague of mine a bit ago and this subject came up...he had an interesting point RE: the Cath Bag...he thought she might have an action based on the Americans with Disabilities act... Title III - Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities)
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189.
Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.
I want to clarify that had I had the experience of meeting her coming around the corner in the store I would have thought it was disgusting, may have even left the store...but my point is it's not to far from (as long as you are not breaking community standards for obscenity) saying someone can't wear a bikini top,ugly shorts and a cath bag, to you can't wear a gun, or a loose fitting shirt that might conceal a weapon.
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other people.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. ( ie., You don't like what is in the store, you have the "right" to leave the store...but not the right to impose your feelings or belief in place of another person's "Rights") As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating anothers rights.
When one choose to attack another's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he puts himself in a trick bag.For surely someone will come long who doesn't like the cut of your jib!
What ever happened to "No Shirt, No Shoes, No service" yeah I know only in resturants.....
Interesting concept, "rights." One of the best lecturers I had in college noted that my right to swing my fist stops just short of the end of his nose.
She was probably well within her rights, but that doesn't make her right.